Canon A1 does not have autofocus (I used to own a brace of them and a
Ikelite housing and also sold them back in the late 70's when I worked in
photographic retail).

Probably the best non-autofocus camera ever made IMNSHO.

Not to mention that IR focusing systems tend to focus on the reflected IR
from the inside of the housing.

Not that the 28 isn't a nice lens.  On the other hand, if I had it to do
over, I would have gone with a standard lens that works well above and below
the water and which is the lens that the standard extension tubes and
framers were designed.  There's accessories for other lenses, but those that
work with the standard lens are more common and more likely to be available
used.

Come to think of it, if I had it to do over again, I'd do some real research
(this time) and buy digital.  It's much better suited to my current
photographic preferences, above and below the surface.  More on this at the
end of this message.

I expect you're right, but it's worth keeping in mind anyway.

OK, here's the more.
I got tired of spending my hold dive taking a few photographs.  My wife got
even more tired of it and my friends all decided solo diving was better than
the buddy system.  I was spending so much time getting a few good pictures,
that I was not enjoying the dives.  BTW, the same thing happened to my above
ground photography.  I'll discuss that a bit too.

Since I still liked to have underwater pictures to show, I figured I would
get a digital video camera that I could turn on at the beginning of the dive
and turn off at the end.  All that I considered, had the ability to extract
a reasonably decent (for screen viewing and modest sized prints) still from
the video.  As I've advised others to do, I shopped housings first and,
armed with knowledge of what housings were available, decided on the small
Sony digital video.  I forget the number.  I was doing great until I got to
the camera shop.  They brought out the Sony and then showed me why the
similarly priced (it was more, but I'm not telling Jayna), similarly sized
(it's larger) Canon was far superior.  It really is superior and, being a
gadget freak of the highest degree, I bought the Canon.  Unfortunately, I
forgot my own advice.  I failed to confirm that there was a standard housing
for the camera I bought.  There wasn't and a custom one would have cost as
much or more than the camera.  That camera has still not been under water.

On land, I found that carrying a full sized camera was annoying and that
leaving it in the car was a good way to ensure damage to the car and loss of
everything in it.  Since everything in it often includes a firearm, that
possibility is even more undesirable than it would be otherwise.  I stopped
carrying a camera everywhere, but didn't stop finding things I wanted a
picture of.  I did a better job of solving this problem.  I bought one of
the ultra small Casio digital cameras.  Problem solved.  The upside is
pretty obvious.  I can carry this camera everyplace without bother.  It
lives in my car and takes trips on the boats.  The downside is not a big
deal for me, but it's worth knowing.  It is much harder to hold a small
camera steady than it is to hold a big one steady.  Practice makes perfect,
but with a camera this size, you really have to concentrate on squeezing
that shutter release instead of punching it.

Lee

I have more experience than some who have answered you and less than some
others.  here is my take:
I have about 3,000 underwater pictures, a little less than half of which
are with a Nikonos V.  If you want "snapshot" type pictures, get a Nikon
Coolpix 4300 and a Fantasea case, and you are good to go.  This will cost
in the neighborhood of $400 (low) to $600 (high).  With some scotch magic
tape in front of the flash, this setup will work great in water shallower
than 30 feet without an external strobe, or deeper than 30 feet if you are
within about 3 feet of your subject.  Fogging is a problem- blow out the
case carefully with dry scuba tank air before sealing the camera in the
case, and don't forget to turn it on first <G>.  My wife has won the
onboard photo contest on the Nekton Rorqual the last TWO times we have gone
using this setup.  And some of the photos were taken with $3000+ camera
systems- proof that the photographer is more important than the camera.

I have more experience than some who have answered you and less than some
others.  here is my take:
I have about 3,000 underwater pictures, a little less than half of which
are with a Nikonos V.  If you want "snapshot" type pictures, get a Nikon
Coolpix 4300 and a Fantasea case, and you are good to go.  This will cost
in the neighborhood of $400 (low) to $600 (high).  With some scotch magic
tape in front of the flash, this setup will work great in water shallower
than 30 feet without an external strobe, or deeper than 30 feet if you are
within about 3 feet of your subject.  Fogging is a problem- blow out the
case carefully with dry scuba tank air before sealing the camera in the
case, and don't forget to turn it on first <G>.  My wife has won the
onboard photo contest on the Nekton Rorqual the last TWO times we have gone
using this setup.  And some of the photos were taken with $3000+ camera
systems- proof that the photographer is more important than the camera.

I have more experience than some who have answered you and less than some
others.  Here is my take:
I have about 3,000 underwater pictures, a little less than half of which
are with a Nikonos V.  If you want "snapshot" type pictures, get a Nikon
Coolpix 4300 and a Fantasea case, and you are good to go.  This will cost
in the neighborhood of $400 (low) to $600 (high).  With some scotch magic
tape in front of the flash, this setup will work great in water shallower
than 30 feet without an external strobe, or deeper than 30 feet if you are
within about 3 feet of your subject.  It is also [possible to focus to
within 3 inches or so with this setup. Fogging is a problem- blow out the
case carefully with dry scuba tank air before sealing the camera in the
case, and don't forget to turn it on first <G>.  My wife has won the
onboard photo contest on the Nekton Rorqual the last TWO times we have gone
using this setup.  And some of the photos were taken with $3000+ camera
systems- proof that the photographer is more important than the camera.
    My Real camera is a Nikonos V with a 28 mm lens.  The optics are superb
and the clarity of the photos is incredible.  I use an Ikelite AiN strobe
and an Ultralight  tray and arm.  I RARELY use the TTL setting on the
camera, preferring to shoot in M90 mode, setting my own f-stops.  I have a
small padded bag (marble bag type thing- a headlamp from Princeton Tech
came in it- the headlamp leaked) in which I carry my closeup lens attached
to the strobe arm.  I do NOT carry the rod or framer.  When I see a closeup
opportunity, I pop on the closeup lens, adjust the flash and my f-stop and
focus, and fire away.  When I want to go back to distance shooting, I pull
off the lens and put it back in the bag, readjust the strobe, focus and f-
stop, and I am ready to roll.  I get the focal distance for my closeup
pictures by using my hand- with my thumb on the edge of the camera lens and
my hand spread as wide as possible, the focal point is about 1/8'' beyond
my extended pinky.  Since the depth of field for the close-up lens is about
2", this gets me close enough in most instances (unless I move TOO much),
and lets me have the best of both worlds.  I am currentlly toying with the
idea of getting a 20mm lens and using it exclusively since it will focus
very close and far without going through the lens change thing.

I hope this helps
Jack Hall
Eyesguy@aol.com